Referendums Essay, Research Paper
??????????? Referendums are defined as being the
submission of a political question to the direct vote of the electorate,
whereas elections are defined as public choice of governmental representatives
under a democratic system. Although both require the electorate to vote in a
similar way using a ballot box in a polling station, they are in fact quite
different. Elections require the voter to choose which MP and which political
party they would prefer to form the government and run the country, for example
the 1997 election where the electorate voted to bring the Labour Party lead by
Tony Blair into power. Referendums, however, happen when the government in
power decides to put a question to the public to find out their views on the
issue, for example a referendum on the issue of whether Britain should join the
single European currency is imminent. (b) Referendums have
been used much more widely in recent years, not only in Britain but all over
the world, especially in liberal democracies where the government believes it
is important to increase direct democracy. Even though the use of referendums
have increased, there has been only eleven referendums in the past twenty five
years, and almost half have took place while the present Labour government have
been in office. Examples of British referendums are: the referendum on the
devolution of Wales, which produced a ?yes? outcome; the London, Scotland and
Northern Ireland referendums on devolving central government power; on the
dissolution of marriage; and the referendum on Cabinet Confidentiality. An
example of a referendum that is imminent could be the decision whether to join
the Euro or not; however, it is unlikely that this will take place before the
next general election and if the Conservative Party become government then it
will be even less likely that a referendum will take place due to the
Conservative?s commitment to saving the pound. Similarly, the entire UK
electorate will have to decide on a new voting system for Westminster, and
seeing as it is unlikely that a new system could be implemented before the next
election, the Conservatives could easily postpone the introduction of reform is
they returned to power.In Liberal
democracies such as America, Canada, France and Australia referendums have
become a common device for enhancing citizen democracy. Referendums in America
such as the prohibition referendum have helped people feel that they are
participating in politics. For example, in Texas, the introduction of
television voting was supposed to enhance democracy by widening the franchise
and make people feel like they were being a good citizen. However, referendums
may not always be seen as positive, such as the Marxist belief that referendums
are purely a sham and a cover up to government manipulation, i.e. people are
conned into thinking it?s democratic when it?s actually the opposite way round.Governments think
that by having frequent referendums they are not only involving the public in
democracy and reconnecting politics with the people, but also making them more
accountable to Parliament and the public. However, some people argue that New
Labour especially are using them to carry through radical changes in our
constitutional system without proper rules, and open to the possibility of rigging
the outcome. A solution to this could be a set of rules governing the use of
referendums, as if these were followed, there would be less room for criticism
and more chance for direct democracy.Referendums shouldn?t
be used to simply side-step parliamentary protocol, and they should not be a
substitute for parliamentary democracy; they should be used whenever the public
show they have strong views on and issue, either through petitions or pressure
groups. For example, the issue of fox hunting has become extremely
controversial, and a referendum would easily produce a clear outcome. In the
referendum for Wales, the referendum could have easily produced the opposite
outcome if the campaign had been fairer ? this is a perfect example of the
government almost abusing the power they had over the referendum. Maybe the
government realise they can use referendums in their favour, and maybe this
could be a valid reason explaining the increased use of asking the people?s
opinion.Overall, referendums
definitely have been used much more frequently over the past few years, and
this is due to many reasons, both for the government?s and the public?s favour.(c)Despite the arguments
that appear against the use of referendums, there are many advantages which
explain the use of them in the first place. Obviously the far most important
issue is that fact that democracy is enhanced by public participation; they
feel like they are involved in politics and this will not only educate and
stimulate the voters but also make them more aware about politics and the views
and promises of the government itself. As people are being given a more direct
participation in the decision making process, they may feel possibly prouder to
be a citizen as their individual preferences are being taken into
consideration. It is even argued that if politicians are seen to care about the
views of the people, the gap that has opened up between the governing and the
governed will be narrowed.Even though no
large-scale referendums took place in Britain until 1973, political parties are
using them to their advantage. This is a definitely a positive thing for the
parties themselves, however opponents of the use of referendums could argue
that political parties use them to quickly pass through radical change. The power of
backbenchers in the House of Commons might be increased through the use of
referendums, especially if they were in a position to insist on a referendum as
a condition for supporting a bill, as happened in 1978 over devolution. However,
backbencher MPs may disagree as their role as a representative to their
constituency may be at risk as the use of referendums increases since
constituents use their MP to put forward their ideas in Parliament. This could
also be seen as an advantage as the use of referendums would surely then
strengthen representative government by weakening a party system that
frequently fails to represent the will of the public. But then again, this is
also open to criticism.Some people argue
that parliamentary sovereignty could be threatened by the establishment of an
alternative means of ratifying laws, made clear by Margaret Thatcher in 1975
?To subject laws retrospectively to a popular vote suggests a serious breach to
this principle?. This can easily be contradicted by the argument that
parliamentary sovereignty ultimately lies in the sovereignty of the people in a
democratic system. Also, as long as referendums have to be approved by
parliament and remain advisory, rather than binding, sovereignty will remain in
parliament?s hands and representative government will be untouched.Supporters of
referendums believe that only through a referendum can a government receive a
clear, final decision through guidance from the public on a particular issue.
This cannot be done in a general election, as the public doesn?t always vote
for party policies in particular, maybe because they are not fully aware of the
policies in the first place. In 1975, the Leader of the House of Commons, Ted
Short, justified the use of a referendum in the decision to stay in the
European Community by saying ?Only by means of a referendum can we find out
whether the British people do or do not consent to our continued membership?.
Similarly, the Prime Minister in office at the time of the European referendum
said ?It means that fourteen years of national argument are over?, emphasising
the ability to make a final decision on various issues. Using the promise of
referendums have proved to play a part in attracting support for political
parties in general elections. A possible example could have been the Labour
Party before the 1997 election. They promised referendums on reform, devolution
and the Euro, and since the Conservative Party were opposed to change involving
these issues, a percentage of the electorate may have voted according to these
policies.Referendums can be
used to break deadlocks between the Houses of Lords and Commons. Although this
doesn?t happen as frequently nowadays, in the crisis of 1909-1911 over the
People?s Budget and the Parliament Bill the Conservatives proposed for any bill
relating ?to a matter of great gravity? to be taken to a referendum if rejected
by the Lords.Another perfectly
valid reason that surely it is the British citizens? right to be asked their
opinion in certain cases, because the fundamental issues are matters which
affect the future direction of the country, and to keep the interests of the
public in hand, governments should continue to use referendums.Regarding the
democratic relevance of referendums, in theory, our system emphasises the
importance of the supremacy of Parliament, but in practice many people feel
that our machinery does not work as well as it should, and ploys such as
referendums and electoral reform might improve the health and vitality of the
political progress.Overall, even though
there are both advantages and disadvantages for the use of referendums, as long
as referendums are fair and honest there is nothing wrong with using them to
their full advantage.(d)Despite the use of referendums
more widely over recent years, this form of democracy has been open to
criticism of many different kinds. Not only have
referendums been accused of being unfair through many different means, but also
the subject of parliamentary sovereignty and representative government has been
threatened. People may argue that a clear, final decision can be made through
use of a referendum, but this is not always the case, the perfect example being
in 1955 when the Swedish government ignored the people?s vote to continue to
drive on the left hand side of the road. To consult and then to ignore the
verdict is worse than ever to have sought an opinion in the first place. One of the main
criticisms of the use of referendums is the fact that the democratic accountability
is paradoxically under threat from the Government?s regular use of them. The
word ?paradoxically? has been used because referendums are often seen as the
most democratic way of taking government decisions, but in reality, they are
not. Often, the questions put to the public are very ambiguous, and both sides
of the argument do not fairly put their case to the voters. Michael Ancram once
described referendums as ?dangerous weapons of national self-delusion and
cosmetic democracy?, which clearly shows that the government?s use of
referendums can manipulate the public. For example, the present Government?s
plan for spending limits in referendums could be used to explain the attempt to
rig the vote on the abolishment of the pound. Not only would this impose an
unwarranted restriction on free speech, but would be futile to prevent British
people from expressing their opinion. Jack Straw wants to propose a £5 million
spending cap on the Euro referendum for each party with two or more MPs. This
is not an equal formula as Labour, the Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid Cymru
are all opposed to the Conservative?s commitment to saving the pound. This will
not only allow more propaganda on the pro-Europe side, but also then in turn
manipulate the public into voting for what the Labour party wants. A similar example of
the unfairness of referendums took place in 1997 when the referendum for the
devolution of Wales happened, which allowed Wales to have an assembly. The
Neill Committee?s report said the campaign could have gone the other way if it
had been fairer. As the Government funds backed the ?yes? vote, the report
suggested the campaign for a Welsh assembly only won narrowly due to this fact.
The votes counted showed 559,419 votes to 552,698 votes, that being only 50.1%
of the electorate anyway. The ?No? campaign was seriously underfunded, which
would mean that they would have less money for propaganda and advertising,
therefore making the argument very one-sided. To solve the problem of being
accused in this way, funds should be provided for both sides of any issue
subject to a referendum, and the government should remain neutral throughout
the campaign.Another disadvantage
of referendum that falls into the unfairness category could be the accusation
that governments use referendums to side-step parliamentary protocol i.e.
stepping past Parliament by side-stepping its conventions and putting power
directly in the hands of the electorate. An ex Conservative MP Jonathon Sayeed
said ?Referendums are not a substitute for parliamentary democracy and must
only be used sparingly?. Many people have accused the present Labour Government
of abusing this convention and having four referendums in their first year of
office. Criticism of the government?s multiple use of referendums has not been
confined to the Conservative benches either; Labour MP Martin Linton agreed it
was vital for a proper debate to take place before any referendum, as this
didn?t happen before the vote for London mayor and assembly.Marxists would agree
that by using referendums, the public sees it as a chance to be involved in
politics and be educated by their nature. In the public?s eyes, the chance for
direct democracy is a positive thing as it helps the government to be more
accountable, however, the public don?t always take a fully extended interest in
what is actually going on. Only the people who research it and find out that
referendums are sometimes being used to quickly carry through radical changes
in our constitutional system without any rules realise that the ?direct
democracy? is often a cover-up.To overcome these
criticisms of referendums being accused as ?a Bonapartist device for
manipulating the public?, they should be governed by legislation. As the use of
referendums has become much more common recently, both in Britain and many
other places around the world, we have no rules governing their use. At
present, the government decides when and on what issues they will be held so
they become another political tool for the party in power. If a set of rules
was passed, it may limit the government on their use of referendums, but it
would make them a formal part of the political process, and would draw the
attention back to the real reason of using them in the first place; to enhance
fair direct democracy.